Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls
"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Mon, 24 May 2010 17:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58833A6C9E for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2010 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f0BPyiavk3MM for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2010 10:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2beaomr09.btconnect.com (c2beaomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.26.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDE63A6C44 for <syslog@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 May 2010 10:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc6 (host86-172-78-59.range86-172.btcentralplus.com [86.172.78.59]) by c2beaomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id ERZ17117; Mon, 24 May 2010 18:38:44 +0100 (BST)
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=0001.0A0B0301.4BFAB9A4.01F6, actions=tag
Message-ID: <00ab01cafb5f$2fece680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
References: <20100511182040.16429@web6.nyc1.bluetie.com> <01c701caf904$d1662c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4BF7F544.70004@ieca.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 18:35:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.4BFAB9B2.01C2, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-07-20 21:54:04, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: syslog <syslog@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls
X-BeenThere: syslog@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Issues in Network Event Logging <syslog.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog>
List-Post: <mailto:syslog@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:39:16 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Turner" <turners@ieca.com> To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Cc: <jsalowey@cisco.com>; "Chris Lonvick" <clonvick@cisco.com>; "syslog" <syslog@ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls > t.petch wrote: > > I see that this I-D had entered 'Revised I-D needed' which I would like to > > progress. > > > > I see several comments about maximum record size, including a suggestion that we > > should make the 'SHOULD NOT' a 'MUST NOT' exceed 2**14. > > > > I am dead set against this change. We had a clear requirment, early on, to > > allow 65k messages, and I think it wrong to MUST NOT that requirement. The text > > in the other I-Ds is a compromise to strke a balance between this and having > > everything fit in 576 byte; I think we have the balance right. > > Tom, > > My response to Alexey was that this I-D borrows that particular > requirement from RFC4347 and that this I-D shouldn't be upping the > requirement. If it's okay with you, I'll forward him your response. > The way I read his comment was that he's just asking why - he's not > really requesting a change. Sean Right, but after Alexey's comment there was one from Joe saying "let's make this change it seems reasonable", so my reaction was, no, this is not reasonable! We may want to tinker with the text, but a "MUST NOT exceed 2**14" I see as going too far. Tom Petch > spt
- [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-syslog… Sean Turner
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Chris Lonvick
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Sean Turner
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… tom.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Chris Lonvick
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Sean Turner
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Tim Evens
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… tom.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-sy… Tim Evens
- [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-iet… t.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… Rainer Gerhards
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… Sean Turner
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… robert.horn
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… t.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… t.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… Pasi.Eronen
- [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-iet… t.petch